A survival guide for living in a theocracy of hypocrites and dumbasses.
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/surviving-a-second-trump-term/article_5ed2d6e4-aa81-11ef-adb3-3f8464d85370.html
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Monday, November 25, 2024
Questions Nov 26
Presentations conclude (Do keep it to 10 minutes, presenters, and let's postpone discussion until all the reports are done.)... Rec: Setiya 6-7 -- Absurdity, Hope
- WJ, On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings (1899) - in BNA, on reserve - H2 Gino Palilla
- SSHM ch6 Wonder and Hope #H01 Hayden Dye, #H2 Haley Gauda, #H3 Floris
- Setiya 6-7 Absurdity, Hope #H1 Coven Gallers, #H2 Aidan Taylor, #H3 Daniel Chera
- QE XIII Now what? #H1 Ella Helms, #H2 Will Stout
- WJ, What Pragmatism Means (1903) - in BNA, on reserve - #H2 Sage Robinson, Gary Wedgewood, #H3 Traden Davis
- The question of absurdity is about what? 148
- Why isn't "42" a good answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything? 151-2
- What did Samuel Scheffler say about "the afterlife"? What's "the Alvy Singer problem"? 161-3
- What does Rebecca Solnit say about the relation between hope and action? 175
- What did Seamus Heaney say about the relation between hope and history? 182
And one last question:
Exam Review, Parts 1 & 2
Setiya 4- Failure (Faith Carbonari Final Post)
The textbook definition of failure is, “A lack of success in doing or achieving something, especially in relation to a particular activity.” Failure is used to describe an action, not a person. So why do people consider themselves failures? When asked, most everyone agrees that they’ve viewed themselves as failures at least once in their life. So, why? What does it mean to be a failure of a person? Not to fail, but to call yourself a failure?
In my opinion, to call yourself a failure is to reduce your identity to successes perceived by others, and expectations implemented by society. Is it not a success to be alive? To even have a goal? I would say the act of pursuing a goal is more successful than achieving that goal. You can’t be broken down into just the pieces of you that others see as successful, because success is relative. In chapter 4, Setiya discusses sports failures a lot, expanding on how some people make one mistake and are forced to live out the rest of their lives being reduced to it. You miss a catch, or a touchdown, and you lose the Superbowl. From that point forward, people know you through that one mistake you made. (Especially with the rise of social media, where "fail" videos are posted left and right, for example...) Superbowl Fails
In relation to this, Setiya states, “No one's life can be reduced to one event, one enterprise, or one ambition. Each is made up of facts and facts and facts.” And I can’t agree more. With this, he’s explaining that your identity and your life are more than just what you achieve. Everything is more complicated than just “Win” and Lose.” And even what you achieve isn’t always completely in your control. In my opinion, people don’t think about the fact failure is relative (For example, a person losing the SuperBowl is still less of a “failure” than someone struggling to be placed on an NFL team). Not that you have to be grateful for failing, but don’t torture yourself with the idea that your mistakes equate to your identity.
Us humans came up with the idea of “failure,” so we are at fault for any state of mind seeing things that way. The universe can throw unpredictable and uncontrollable circumstances at you that can cause your demise, such as a broken leg preventing you from playing sports or a family emergency keeping you from acting your best. We are never fully in control of the future. Anything can happen. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can abandon the two-sided mindset of “Succeeding” and “Failing.”
He moves on to describe Groundhog Day, a movie where essentially the main character (Phil) is forced to live the same day again and again. At first it seems great, since he’s able to do whatever he wants (Here is a great clip displaying that-).
But in the end, he finds his life to be mundane and sad, the repetitiveness seeping into his mind. At the end he escapes the nothingness of the life he’s living to accept mortality. Setiya explains that this reflects the Buddhist mentality of achieving the nothingness of nirvana.
Setiya disagrees with the Buddhist mentality of letting everything go to achieve contentment. He believes soaking up the moment and feeling fulfilled in everything he has is more meaningful. A quote to describe someone who feels things fully is, “One less man gauged to success and failure; attuned not just to project but to process.” Not just to display and perform, but to feel. He believed that feeling things fully was a true success as a person.
The term failure as a term to describe people was actually created during the great depression, where people lived to work and worked to live. A person’s purpose was broken down into numbers and achievements, and in getting “further” in life. Work amounted to success; success amounted to work. And the tragic part was, many of the most “successful” people fell (and fall) into drugs or alcohol abuse. This is most likely because they have an internalized view of what success SHOULD be, and feel like they haven't done enough, and truly believe they are a failure. Imposter syndrome can be lethal.
With this in mind, as long as self-esteem is tied to the production of market value, some will feel that they are “Failures” and feel in debt for living. So, Setiya finishes by saying since we can't just be uncaring about how others perceive us, we can change how we view their opinions and let it affect us. We’re raised to care how others think; most all insecurities are grown from the idea of being perceived negatively by others. But through helping our own internal mindset, we’re taking care of ourselves better.
Overall the idea of being a “failure” of a person is the result of a social and economic structure failing us. This structure only harms the “losers,” so through overcoming it you can truly “win.” By throwing away the impossible ideal of having a successful life, you can start to focus on what really makes you happy.
Theres this notion that there can only be failure and success, and lack of one equates to the other, but the truth is that everyone exists in the in-between day to day. Every life contains both. Through knowing this, I think we can really feel fulfilled in our lives and understand each other (and ourselves) better.
Reflection Questions- What do you think it takes to be a “winner” or “loser” to others? Do you agree with the Buddhist mentality of letting everything go to achieve inner peace, or the mentality of soaking up everything you can while you're here?
Do We Need God?
Religion has come into question more and more in recent years. As we learn more about the world and about the corruption within various religious organizations, the question on many people’s minds prevails: Do we need god? This is a very complex question, but the quick answer is not really.
As a society, it’s safe to say we certainly used to need some kind of idea of “God” to understand how things work. We simply didn’t know why the world around us functioned in the way it did, and having God to look to give us a reason why. But as we learn more about the world around us, we’ve grown our understanding and, as a people, I believe we are no longer at a point where we NEED God. Now this isn’t to say everyone should go out and become an atheist, even if you don’t need God, that doesn’t mean you can’t benefit from religion in any kind of way.
I read an article from the New York Times called “What Religion Gives us (That Science Can’t)” by a journalist called William Widmer, he examines the philosophy of evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, who claims that “for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.” William does not agree with this idea, and in fact argues that we still need religion. William goes on to tell the story of a mother whose son was murdered at a young age, the mother would have been driven to insanity were it not for her ability to turn to her religion for comfort and her faith that she would be reunited with her son in the afterlife. Now, whether you see this as someone in desperate need finding comfort in the support network her religion provides or a massive organization taking advantage of those at their lowest is up to interpretation, but William believes that this story is a sign of why we still need religion in our lives.
The biggest argument against the need of religion in our modern day is that the only reason we needed religion in the first place was to explain away the things we didn’t understand, and as we grow our understanding of the world our “need” for religion deminishes. I personally subscribe to this view as evident by the intro to this very blogpost, but William of New York Times begs to disagree. He goes on to claim that while scientific discoveries continue to help us understand the world, no amount of science will make us understand the grief we feel and give us the comfort we need. “My claim is that religion can provide direct access to this emotional life in ways that science does not. Yes, science can give us emotional feelings of wonder at the majesty of nature, but there are many forms of human suffering that are beyond the reach of any scientific alleviation.” Now, I see his point, science has a way of taking the feeling out of emotions. If you’re a scientific mind and you’re having a bad day you may think “oh this emotional response in my brain is an imbalence of chemicals and I will feel ok in due time.” and your emotional brain is sitting there like “umm that actually doesn’t help I still feel like shit.” But for me persoanlly, I feel like there has to be a middle ground between “none of my emotions matter because its all science” and “oh mighty god please comfort me in my time of sorrow” Perhaps feeling your emotions as they appear, sitting with them in that time and understanding the feelings you’re feeling is the best way to find solace. Perhaps when you feel down you don’t need a scientific explanation away or an all-mighty deity to comfort you, you just need to recognise what you’re feeling and maybe like, talk to a good friend or something.
Karl Marx said that religion is an opioid and “the sigh of an oppressed culture” claiming that religion does not fix anything in our lives and in fact only serves to numb our pain. He claims religion is “the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” The comparison stems from both opioids and religion being a tool used commonly by those in unfortunate situations to displace their issues and rely on an external source of comfort.
I think the biggest difference and issue with Marx’s claim is that religion usually doesn’t kill people and, at least in the best-case scenario, get’s people to in fact be better to one another. Opioids usually don’t have this effect. This brings up a good point about religion. Everyone I’ve covered here is talking about it in terms of absolute extremes. William Widmer is claiming that religion saved this mother who lost her son, that she would’ve been locked up in a mental institution if it weren’t for her faith in god. Then Karl Marx comes around and says religion is an opioid that is suppressing the oppressed and keeping us from developing as a people entirely. I feel like maybe you can have religion in your life to help you without it being the sole reason you’re still alive but also without it taking over your life and destroying you.
My takeaway is that the question “Do we need god” is misleading, “need” is too strong of a word. I do not believe anyone needs god, but I do think that many people benefit from a connection to their form of god. Science won’t help a grieving mother, and religion won’t fix the problem, but it might help the mother make it through her struggle, and sometimes that’s all we can ask for. So if people get comfort and feel more fulfilled and seen in their lives because of god, I am not one to take that away from someone, and I don’t think Karl Marx should be either.
My discussion questions are: Do you think we still need religion today and why?
State censorship?
I don't think anyone will ever suspect me of being censored, or self-censored... or that anyone in my classes feels inhibited about expressing themselves. Right? But what about other courses? The fact that our legislature is raising these issues is a bit concerning, as regards academic freedom. These are challenging times for freedom of expression in America, with books being banned and tolerance being scorned. Thoughts, anyone? (Thanks for the link, Gary.)
Are MTSU professors censored by the state?
Last week, students received a biennial campus climate survey asking if they can express themselves adequately at MTSU.
The survey resulted from Public Chapter No. 268, which prohibits public higher education institutions from taking specific actions regarding divisive concepts and students’ and employees’ beliefs, ideologies or viewpoints. Governor Bill Lee signed it into law in 2023.
As part of the law’s requirement, public higher education institutions must survey students, staff and faculty to determine if individuals can freely express their beliefs, ideologies or viewpoints.
“When [the law] was passed, many professors became concerned that it would limit their free speech, but a careful reading makes it clear that no professor who teaches his or her course in a professional way is in danger of losing a position with the university,” said Ken Paulson, director of MTSU’s Free Speech Center and a renowned first amendment lawyer.
However, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee said, “the provisions of these laws are intentionally vague and mandate reporting of ill-defined ‘violations,’ causing fear of future retribution from the Tennessee legislature.”
The law explicitly targets 16 divisive concepts... (Sidelines, continues)
Sunday, November 24, 2024
What a Lame Duck President Could Do for Lame Turkeys
"…Today's turkeys are not treated by turkey producers as individual birds capable of enjoying their lives, but as machines that convert cheap crops (which are also often subsidized) to something that can be sold at a higher price. The 46 million turkeys killed and eaten at Thanksgiving are almost all "broad-breasted whites," selectively bred to have abnormally large breasts, because that is the part that most people prefer to eat. These birds have bodies so misshapen that they usually cannot reproduce on their own. They are the result of artificial insemination, which, especially for the females, is a procedure that they resist, but in vain..."
Peter Singer
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/opinion/biden-turkey-thanksgiving-pardon.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Saturday, November 23, 2024
Maheswari Ramesh's Final Blog Post (H02)
Is This the End of the World as We Know It?!
Question Everything, Part XI
Hello everyone! Let's start with a beautiful song from Billie Eilish, "The End of the World," which is worth listening to!
Now, I want you all to close your eyes and stop thinking about everything for a second! Make your mind as empty as a black hole, and pay closer attention! Imagine the memories and flashbacks of World War 2, where 1000s of soldiers were killed/injured, the crisis of women and children in hunger and poverty with cries and curses echoing in your hearts, the state of animals either getting displaced/killed, millions of trees being cut down, grasslands and croplands being uprooted, and the world burning as a whole! Gradually open your eyes...
If this scenario doesn't make you emotional, I don't know what else would!
Ladies and gentlemen, this thing you imagined might happen again in a few years! I didn't mean a World War 3, but a war due to greed, jealousy, dishonesty, aggression, cruelty, lust, avarice, unjust, disloyalty, and hatred toward other fellow beings due to barriers in nationality, religion, politics, thoughts, creed, race, and other factors that separate us all and kill us off!!
In Hinduism, we call this era of civilization "Kaliyug,"
where "Kali" refers to all these bad qualities I mentioned! The exciting part is that our forefathers and ancestors, billions and billions of years ago, gave this name and predicted humanity exactly the way it is today in ancient scriptures, as archeologists have found!
There's also this film called "Kalki" that was released in Bollywood last year, where they depict a futuristic view of 2898 AD and how the end is approaching due to destructive human qualities. Here in the film, there resides a supreme evil who tries to suck the barely remaining world resources and concentrates them in a single location due to greed. Ordinary people, on the other hand, are forced to fight with each other and starve in poverty.
This film perfectly describes the question: "If acts such as ours (even the simplest wrongs that we do) continue to increase, is this the end of the world as we know it?"
This is (as you already saw in the title) exactly what my topic is! "Is this the end of the world as we know it?" Since this is a question-everything topic, I have a couple of essays from three authors with different viewpoints on how the world would end!
First, Ms. Alison McQueen, in her essay "How to be a prophet of Doom?" explores the historical context and psychological impact of nuclear threat, mainly focusing on the works of Hans. J. Morgenthau. Morgenthau is a prominent figure in international relations who wrote "Death in the Nuclear Age" to emphasize the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons and to instill a sense of fear and urgency in the public. So, through Morgenthau's work, Ms. McQueen tries to claim that the end of the world could be due to the usage of nuclear weapons. (Probably in the hypothetical World War 3).
He mainly did this because, during the 1960s, despite the prevailing fear of nuclear war, there was also a strong culture of nuclear denial. This denial was fueled by optimistic views from figures like Herman Kahn, who argued that the US could survive and even thrive after a nuclear war! This optimism was reflected in popular media, which often depicted post-nuclear scenarios in a positive light (which, according to me, is foolish bravery because nobody, including the Presidents of nations, could survive and definitely not thrive after a nuclear war).
Hence, Morgenthau believed that such optimism made the unthinkable more likely, as it downplayed the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war. He argued that nuclear annihilation would render traditional ways of transcending death, such as heroism and leaving behind a legacy, meaningless. The destruction of human civilization and its cultural artifacts would eliminate the possibility of remembrance and commemoration. So, Ms. Mc Queen draws a parallel between Morgenthau's warnings and contemporary nuclear threats, highlighting the ongoing risks posed by the world's nuclear arsenals. She emphasized the importance of acknowledging these threats and taking them seriously to prevent a potential nuclear catastrophe.
Now, talking about another essay by Dr. Simon Critchley named "To Philosophize is to learn how to Die," which was published during the COVID-19 pandemic, he dwells into the pervasive anxiety and fear experienced during the pandemic, highlighting feelings of powerlessness, isolation and the constant threat from illness and death.
He explored how philosophers like Socrates, Descartes, and Montaigne have historically dealt with isolation and mortality, suggesting that philosophy can offer insights and consolation during such times. Critchley distinguishes between fear (which is a reason for a specific threat) and anxiety (which is a more persuasive, objectless feeling), arguing that the pandemic has heightened our anxiety. He emphasizes the importance of accepting our mortality as a path to true freedom, drawing inspiration from Montaigne's idea that learning to die frees us from the fear of death. He, ultimately, suggests that by embracing our anxiety and mortality, we can find forms of liberation and courage.
From this essay, we learn that any time could be the end of the world, considering factors beyond our control like COVID-19. So, overcoming fear to live happily in the present is everything that matters.
BUT! But, at the same time, since the COVID-19 mystery remains unresolved, whether it was a natural calamity or an actual bio war, I feel that this essay somewhat suggests concepts of a bio war, unlike the previous nuclear war. Here, I also remember a film from south India named "Yealaam Arivu," translated as "Human's Seventh Sense," where a Chinese man comes to purposefully experiment and play with Indians' lives by injecting a virus into a dog that spreads a weird disease to other dogs. Then, people and the whole of India get affected by this virus within two weeks. The scenes and situations shown in this film, released in 2011 (I repeat 2011), were 99.99 % similar to what happened to the whole world from China during COVID-19. Then, in the film, China creates a situation where India depends on them for treatment to cunningly increase their economic income and world status to prove their superiority. So, I personally interpreted this essay in a way where the world could end due to either "human uncontrollable consequences" or "bio war."
(Disclaimer: I gave this example because of how closely everything happened to explain the similarities in these situations and not to directly or indirectly target anyone/any nation.)
Moving forward with the third essay that I got, named "Our Pursuit of Happiness- Is Killing the Planet" by James Traub, we see that his essay explores the tensions between "Individual liberty" and "Collective Responsibility" in the context of climate change. Traub talks about climate change, suggesting that sacrifices such as adjusting the thermostats or reducing meat consumption may be necessary to reduce carbon footprint. He highlights the principles of classical liberalism as articulated by John Stuart Mill, which assets that individuals should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not harm others.
Traub reflects on a conversation that he had with a college student who advocated for two-thirds of a vegan diet to combat climate change, illustrating the challenges of personal behavior change.
He acknowledges that sweeping legislative proposals like the Green New Deal place most of the burden on the utilities and industries but argues that achieving net-zero emissions will also require changes in personal behavior. He talks about President Franklin D Roosevelt, who restricted some liberties to advance larger ones during the Great Depression. He also argues that liberal societies have always faced this problem of "second-handed smoke," where one person's action can harm others. He then concludes by questioning whether societies can find new equilibrium before the effects of climate change become catastrophic.
His essay basically calls for a balance between individual liberty and collective responsibility and warns us that if we do not take action to stop the harm that we have caused to this planet, then we will be killing the planet and ultimately killing ourselves. I remember one of my favorite quotes here, which goes as,
"Money is yours, but the resources belong to all"
And yeah! They say we cannot buy our beautiful planet after destroying it because you cannot get back those wonderful natural non-renewable resources with your money!
Finally, apart from these, there are specific theories that scientists claim that in about 5 billion years, the Sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel and expand into a red giant, engulfing the inner planets, including Earth. Before this happens, the Sun's increasing luminosity will make Earth uninhabitable by boiling away the oceans and stripping the atmosphere.
Check out this article here-
There is also another belief where scientists predict that over an extremely long timescale, Earth's orbit could decay due to gravitational radiation, causing it to spiral into the Sun or another massive object.
Check out this article here-
So, in conclusion, I wish to ask you all these discussion questions-
"How exactly do you think that world will end? Will it be due to a nuclear war, bio war, human uncontrollable natural occurrence, climate change, scientific reasoning, or those bad qualities like hatred, greed, jealousy, etc."
(I personally feel that end could be due to us because we reap what we sow! Whether it may be climate change, a nuclear threat, or a bio war, humans are ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING! So, if we don't stop all the minor/major mistakes in the context of humanity and the environment we are doing, we will never save our planet!)
This discussion question is a HUGE one! So, take your time to think about some really important stuff and start analyzing yourself in this regard because remember, "Droplets make up an ocean!"
Thank you!
Maheswari Ramesh
Friday, November 22, 2024
Thursday, November 21, 2024
Final Presentation- Truth and Consequences
For my Final Presentation, I will be talking about Chapter 5: Truth and Consequences of Sick Souls, Healthy Minds.
William James did not have a pragmatic view in his philosophy until later in his life. He believed that in order to be a pragmatist you need to explore life, experience it. The pragmatic method nowadays can be considered the scientific method or empirical testing. James compared it to a hallway with a hundred different doors all unlocked, all leading anywhere. James’s Pragmatic theory of Truth was his way of trying to find the middle ground between the tough-minded and the tender-minded. That there was value to both sides. He believed that a person's attitude or temperament affected how they approach ideas and truth. His theory suggested that truth is attributed to our ideas. There are many facts out there for us to find but truth is the story of those facts. James said, "Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its own verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its valid- action" Kaag talks about how truth can be a matter of representation. He says that ideas come in the form of abstractions or signs. Such as a song that reflects the rhythm of life or a painting eliciting fleeting feelings. These can be true depending on how they work in the world. James said successful ideas can come true. Not just by one individual's idea or situation but by a multitude of people's ideas. An idea can become successful if an idea moves forward over time by tests conducted by many people. We test our ideas against our experience. Society can deem what is normal and what is taboo based on our experiences. He said there are two kinds of truths. Complete truths can be achieved in the long run, but anyone hardly ever reaches it. So, we go through life with little truths. They can guide us through our daily lives sort of successfully. James said, “We have to live through today by the truth we can get today and be ready tomorrow to call it false hood.” He said we must take accountability for the consequences of our ideas. We must be faithful to the realities that shape our ideas but if we ignore these realities or disregarded ideas, we are not following the pragmatic method. We must seek out our sensational termini (end point) with others. We must look at other people's consequences and see if the two end points reach the same ideas. Experience is a common ground, so our ideas need to be checked to see if the idea is real or has meaning. Consequences was the final verdict in Somone's truths. In his book Pragmatism, he explained that the consequences were yet to be decided. Truths were verified by the practical consequences. We all know that he was not a fan of determinism. James said that we use free will to grow and experience the world around us. He said we use it to live out our truths to endure the human condition.
I wanted to get into a little about his time as teacher at Harvard. James taught Philosophy at Harvard and brought his pragmatic theory to the classroom. He encouraged his students to think about the difficult questions of life. He taught his students that philosophy still had life and death significance by broaching the controversial topics of truth, death, God, freedom, evil and suffering. He wanted his students to come together and share their ideas. To create their truths. He basically wrote a how to be a decent teacher guide. He wanted other teachers to help expand the minds of their students. Break out of the societal norms. Experience living instead of muting it. We cannot say we are truly living if we are to stay in a mold society formed for us. Breaking the societal norms that other people or ourselves put on us can be a hard change but James believed that our lives can be invigorating. Like we learned in chapter four about consciousness, once we experience something, we cannot go back to the way it was. It can be good to break out of your bubble. Taking control of your own life and living your truths is the responsible thing to do as long as you take accountability.
Discussion Questions
-Do you believe that in order for your idea to be true and useful it has to have practical consequences?
-Do you believe philosophy is experimental?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)